Jump to content

FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers


Bumper

Recommended Posts

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers Hayden? Steve Waugh? Border? Sutcliffe and Barrington over GC, perhaps? Oh, and I agree with Predator, Len Hutton makes for a serious case too. And you should bring this down to a minimum of 25 tests. 50 was a lot in those days and you miss out on some seriously good players like Walcott and Weekes.

Link to comment

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers Dravid has better stats than Hayden, Waugh or Border. And how exactly Waugh or a Border is more exciting than Dravid as a stroke maker ? Hayden, has this reputation of being a weak bowler bully. If u dont believe me, listen to Ian Chappell. Came up a cropper, many a times, against good attacks. He & Damien Martyn, benefited a lot by the retirement of the great bowlers of the 90s. Absolutely no compromise on 50 tests. Remember Andrew Strauss ? His stats after 14 tests: 14 tests, avg: 55.12, 5 100s, 5 50s. He was averaging one century every 2.5 tests. Now look at where he is after 36 tests. Wait for him to play 20 more tests & watch his average drop to the low 40s. Thats what longevity does to u.

Link to comment

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers Bumper, That 50 Test criterion is obviously flawed. If Bradman had not played 50 tests would you have ruled him out as well? As it stands Bradman played only 2 more tests than 50. So he made to this list not because of his brilliance but because he managed to play 2 more tests than your cut-off, sounds crazy does it not? If that was indeed not a problem in itself bear in mind that this criterion has ruled out all the great players prior to 1930 all by itself. So no I would not agree to this criteria. If you indeed want to use this as one of your criterion then you should perhaps attach some weightage to your criterion. I mean pure stats gets you 1-10 points(1 being lowest, 10 being maximum), while longevity gives you 1-3(1 being lowest and 3 being maximum). There is no way a bowler with 189 wickets in 27 tests( a good 7 wickets per test @16 runs) doesnt get selected in all time best bowlers list. Heck by all account he is the greatest bowler ever. The same criterion rules out Graeme Pollock, which doesnt say much again, does it? As for your criticism about Holding not having stats, well Holding doesnt have it but Walsh does? Here are Holding's numbers: 60 tests 249 wickets @23.6 SR 50 Compare it to Walsh 132 tests 519 wickets @24.4 SR 57.8 Statswise Holding is better in everyway, and he was the more dangerous of the two clearly. As for Akram there is no way any cricket fan who has seen Akram and Walsh would suggest Walsh was the better bowler. Walsh was great but Akram was better. As an Indian fan I would havea tinge of scare when Akram bowled, had the same feeling when Ambrose bowled to Indian batsmen, but Walsh..nah. As for Trueman he deserves to be in top 10 by his numbers, impact on the game, his rescpect within his peers etc etc. 307 wickets in 67. Surely he needs to get in there. See in the end it will all boil down to how you compare players. As I have mentioned before if you dont pick batsman prior to 1930 because they do not have stats then pick the bowlers, they surely do. Here are some bowlers with great stats. Lohmann - 18 tests 112 wickets@10 SR 34 Spofforth - 18 tests 94 wickets @18.4 SR 44 Clarie Grimmett - 37 tests 216 wickets@23 SR67 etc. Tell me why any one of them do not make a good candidate in top 10 bowlers list on sheer stats alone? xxxx PS: Your rebuttal about Greenidge in the game against Imran is ridiculous. The question was about Barry, that is what you get. Now if I pick up WSC where Barry played with other "greats" and scored at 100 plus average(second only to Viv Richards) would that mean rest of the others were crap? And would Imran be considered a crap bowler because Barry and Greendige scored at 50 and 100 when they faced him?

Link to comment

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers Dravid has very poor stats against McWarne, the best bowlers of his time. So he is no better than Hayden against better attacks. Of course, if Dravid gets in based on stats, I don't see why Hayden can't. I personally wouldn't call either of em greats.

Link to comment

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

Bumper, That 50 Test criterion is obviously flawed. If Bradman had not played 50 tests would you have ruled him out as well? As it stands Bradman played only 2 more tests than 50. So he made to this list not because of his brilliance but because he managed to play 2 more tests than your cut-off, sounds crazy does it not? If that was indeed not a problem in itself bear in mind that this criterion has ruled out all the great players prior to 1930 all by itself. So no I would not agree to this criteria.
But Lurker there has to be a minimum criteria for no. of tests played. I already gave the example of Andy Strauss above on how small samples can lead to odd picks. Bradman has played 52 tests, 2 more or one more doesnt matter. If he had played only 20 tests, unfortunately he wouldnt have qualified.
If you indeed want to use this as one of your criterion then you should perhaps attach some weightage to your criterion. I mean pure stats gets you 1-10 points(1 being lowest, 10 being maximum), while longevity gives you 1-3(1 being lowest and 3 being maximum). There is no way a bowler with 189 wickets in 27 tests( a good 7 wickets per test @16 runs) doesnt get selected in all time best bowlers list. Heck by all account he is the greatest bowler ever.
Lurker if am a pro, doing this for my living, i'll do it like u say. But i dont have that much time on my hands. I'd be glad to see someone come up with a list based on weighted averages. Small samples can make lot of players look bigger than they actually are.
The same criterion rules out Graeme Pollock, which doesnt say much again, does it?
Unfortunately Pollock's sample size is too small.
As for your criticism about Holding not having stats, well Holding doesnt have it but Walsh does? Statswise Holding is better in everyway, and he was the more dangerous of the two clearly. Here are Holding's numbers: 60 tests 249 wickets @23.6 SR 50 Compare it to Walsh 132 tests 519 wickets @24.4 SR 57.8
Very similar stats, over a MUCH LONGER PERIOD and MORE THAN TWICE the no. of wickets. Thats what gets Walsh in. Besides Walsh also held a world record for max wickets. Surely thats quite an achievement in any player's career.
As for Akram there is no way any cricket fan who has seen Akram and Walsh would suggest Walsh was the better bowler. Walsh was great but Akram was better. As an Indian fan I would havea tinge of scare when Akram bowled, had the same feeling when Ambrose bowled to Indian batsmen, but Walsh..nah.
Now we are getting into subjective territories. I wont go there. If Akram is as good as u say as a test bowler, why did he not rank EVEN ONCE at the no. 1 spot thru out his career ? Walsh broke the world record, has similar stats, did it for a MUCH LONGER PERIOD. Thats what gets Walsh into the list.
As for Trueman he deserves to be in top 10 by his numbers, impact on the game, his rescpect within his peers etc etc. 307 wickets in 67. Surely he needs to get in there.
He would get in if its a top 15.
See in the end it will all boil down to how you compare players. As I have mentioned before if you dont pick batsman prior to 1930 because they do not have stats then pick the bowlers, they surely do. Here are some bowlers with great stats. Lohmann - 18 tests 112 wickets@10 SR 34 Spofforth - 18 tests 94 wickets @18.4 SR 44 Clarie Grimmett - 37 tests 216 wickets@23 SR67 etc. Tell me why any one of them do not make a good candidate in top 10 bowlers list on sheer stats alone?
50 tests, my friend. Too small a sample. I wont pick Narendra Hirwani after 3 tests, inspite of his world record debut xxxx
PS: Your rebuttal about Greenidge in the game against Imran is ridiculous. The question was about Barry, that is what you get. Now if I pick up WSC where Barry played with other "greats" and scored at 100 plus average(second only to Viv Richards) would that mean rest of the others were crap? And would Imran be considered a crap bowler because Barry and Greendige scored at 50 and 100 when they faced him?
No its not ridiculous. U are getting too touchy here. 1) Its clear that Barry has not played as many quality bowlers as u originally stated. 10 score cards is all u listed. 2) Is it a fair statement that a county attack which has just one international bowler backed by a bunch of no namers, a bit short of international class. I am willing to concede even this point, because of the lack of any other stats. 3) Did i say Barry was crap based on the score cards u listed ? How did u come up with such a conclusion ? I merely stated my observation on Greenidge. Unless there are more score cards against better bowlers, i dont see how we can make any progress on establishing Barry's greatness.
Link to comment

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers And one more point on 50 tests, besides providing a large enuff a sample, it also measures: 1) Career span interms of time. (Assuming 7 tests a year, its 7-8 years of test cricket). 2) Lengthy career span measures so many intangibles, such as performance wane due to ageing, impact on performances due to injuries, consistency etc

Link to comment

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

But Lurker there has to be a minimum criteria for no. of tests played. I already gave the example of Andy Strauss above on how small samples can lead to odd picks. Bradman has played 52 tests, 2 more or one more doesnt matter. If he had played only 20 tests, unfortunately he wouldnt have qualified.
And that tells you a story right ther Bumper, doesnt it? Like you said yourself had Bradman played less he would not have been selected. By all accounts Don Bradman is considered the greatest cricketer ever(though a certain Sobers would have something to say to that). Look at it this way. Take away Bradman's last Test series. His overall stats would be - 47 tests, 6488 runs @102.98. DO you see what I am trying to say here? That his last series, which gets him here by virtue of him playing 5 tests, actually brings down his overall numbers!
Lurker if am a pro, doing this for my living, i'll do it like u say. But i dont have that much time on my hands. I'd be glad to see someone come up with a list based on weighted averages.
Fair enough. But that should also tell you why with so many ratings around we still do not have concrete evidence as to who are top 25 players ever, let alone top 10. I suppose the more one gets deep into such ratings the more he/she learns that it is easier to criticize than to actually sit down and come up with a list, nahin?
Very similar stats, over a MUCH LONGER PERIOD and MORE THAN TWICE the no. of wickets. Thats what gets Walsh in. Besides Walsh also held a world record for max wickets. Surely thats quite an achievement in any player's career.
What similar stats? Here are Walsh's stats after 60 tests(same as Holding's) 60 tests 209 wickets @25. How do you pick him ahead of 60 tests 249 wickets@23.6 guy???
Now we are getting into subjective territories. I wont go there. If Akram is as good as u say as a test bowler, why did he not rank EVEN ONCE at the no. 1 spot thru out his career ? Walsh broke the world record, has similar stats, did it for a MUCH LONGER PERIOD. Thats what gets Walsh into the list
You are wrong if you choose not to venture into subjectivity. Cricket is not only science but also arts. If you choose to not be subjective then you run the risk of judging people based on stats alone and by that yardstick Border, Miandad etc were all greater than Viv. By the way I did not quite get what you mean by Akram not getting no 1 spot. Do you mean in terms of wickets? If so, then why Kapil Dev is not there? If you mean by some ratings then do show me how Akram and Walsh compared to each other over the years.
He would get in if its a top 15.
Fred Trueman in top 15 while Walsh in top 10. Mockery of highest order. Fred Trueman is a candidate for top 5 let alone top 10.
50 tests, my friend. Too small a sample. I wont pick Narendra Hirwani after 3 tests, inspite of his world record debut
Again, that is hardly convincing. You cannot dismiss the players of calibre of Sydney Barnes and Clarie Grimett else there would be little credibility. As for NArendra Hirwani well you realize the difference between a 3 test record and 37 test record surely. By the way Hirwani did not stop playing after 3 tests. xxxxx PS:
No its not ridiculous. U are getting too touchy here. 1) Its clear that Barry has not played as many quality bowlers as u originally stated. 10 score cards is all u listed. 2) Is it a fair statement that a county attack which has just one international bowler backed by a bunch of no namers, a bit short of international class. I am willing to concede even this point, because of the lack of any other stats. 3) Did i say Barry was crap based on the score cards u listed ? How did u come up with such a conclusion ? I merely stated my observation on Greenidge. Unless there are more score cards against better bowlers, i dont see how we can make any progress on establishing Barry's greatness.
For starters it seems you are getting touchy about me "getting touchy". Noone is getting touchy so let it go. 1) It is not clear that Barry Richards played great bowlers? And how is that my kind Sir? You asked for Imran I gave Imran. Is it my fault(or Barry's) that Imran only bowled 10 times to me? You want to compare with Lillee go ahead and see his figures. Why do you want me to do your legwork? It is quite clear that anytime I mention something you move onto something else. Why should I waste my time then? 2) What county attack are you talking about? That is cricket-ignorance my friend. Here is my question to you - How did Indian players - Sunny, Kapil, Venkat, Farokh Engineer, etc perform against the very same county attack? Can you show me how their performance was even half of what BArry Richards acheived? Go on, show me some cold stats. By the way it is not county attack that makes him a great. His performance in his test career amply illustrates what he was acapable of. His performance in WSC lends credibility to the same. County cricket only emphasises that but is not an entire argument in itself. 3) As for the scorcard that was a pointer to show you some stats as you wanted. That was NEVER the argument in itself. And I beleive with the scorecard it is established firmly that Barry did indeed hold his own against great bowlers. So if you choose to look the other way thats your logic, or lack thereof. xxxx
Link to comment

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

And that tells you a story right ther Bumper, doesnt it? Like you said yourself had Bradman played less he would not have been selected. By all accounts Don Bradman is considered the greatest cricketer ever(though a certain Sobers would have something to say to that). Look at it this way. Take away Bradman's last Test series. His overall stats would be - 47 tests, 6488 runs @102.98. DO you see what I am trying to say here? That his last series, which gets him here by virtue of him playing 5 tests, actually brings down his overall numbers!
If Bradman had played only 47 tests (which is not too far off from 50), then obviously i'd have made a small exception & reduced the min criteria to 45 or so. But if he had played only 20 or 30, i wouldnt have included him. Thats only fair to others who have played for a much longer time, battling age, injuries & so many other factors.
Fair enough. But that should also tell you why with so many ratings around we still do not have concrete evidence as to who are top 25 players ever, let alone top 10. I suppose the more one gets deep into such ratings the more he/she learns that it is easier to criticize than to actually sit down and come up with a list, nahin?
I never claimed my list is the best. Like all lists, its subject to debate. But atleast i can show numbers to justify my claims, unlike other lists that i have seen. Barring 2 or 3 players, who are debatable, most would agree that the rest of the list is pretty much justifiable.
What similar stats? Here are Walsh's stats after 60 tests(same as Holding's) 60 tests 209 wickets @25. How do you pick him ahead of 60 tests 249 wickets@23.6 guy???
Similar stats after the end of their careers, not after 60 tests. An avg of 23.6 & an avg of 24.45 are not too different IMO (Its not like 20 vs 25). The reason i stress so much on longevity is that for bowlers, esp fast bowlers, its extremely important. So many get injured (or aged) on the way and are not nearly half the bowler they used to be. Thats why Walsh's 132 test career has to be credited.
You are wrong if you choose not to venture into subjectivity. Cricket is not only science but also arts. If you choose to not be subjective then you run the risk of judging people based on stats alone and by that yardstick Border, Miandad etc were all greater than Viv.
I did not use numbers 100% of the time. As u can see i have picked Viv inspite of his 50 avg. But those are exceptions in my picks, not the norm. And if we venture into too much subjectivity, its just your opinion against mine, we cannot prove or disprove our claims.
By the way I did not quite get what you mean by Akram not getting no 1 spot. Do you mean in terms of wickets? If so, then why Kapil Dev is not there? If you mean by some ratings then do show me how Akram and Walsh compared to each other over the years.
Akram was NEVER rated by ICC rankings at the no. 1 spot even once in his entire career. (Dhondy did some stats on these, he can confirm. I'll try to dig it out, when i find time). McGrath has done it a dozen times i believe. So its not like Akram was such a surreal test bowler who has been unfairly ignored, as u make it out to be. If u compare their head to head stats, Walsh has done better than Akram against majority of the countries (barring Lanka). Add to it, that he was a world record holder and has done it for a longer period of time.
Fred Trueman in top 15 while Walsh in top 10. Mockery of highest order. Fred Trueman is a candidate for top 5 let alone top 10.
But thats your opinion Lurker. IMO thats debatable. I conece that his stats are VERY IMPRESSIVE.
Again, that is hardly convincing. You cannot dismiss the players of calibre of Sydney Barnes and Clarie Grimett else there would be little credibility. As for NArendra Hirwani well you realize the difference between a 3 test record and 37 test record surely. By the way Hirwani did not stop playing after 3 tests.
Do u agree that bowlers wane with time ? Bowlers get injured with time ? That coming back from injury, bowlers frequently dont sustain their dominance ? Do u want me to point specific examples ? 50 tests, is not too big a requirement. Sadly Barnes misses out. He may have been a Shane Warne or just an unfortunate bowler whose career could have been cut short by injury. Who knows ?
For starters it seems you are getting touchy about me "getting touchy". Noone is getting touchy so let it go.
Am glad u are not being touchy, but ur choice of words, seemed to give me that impression
1) It is not clear that Barry Richards played great bowlers? And how is that my kind Sir? You asked for Imran I gave Imran. Is it my fault(or Barry's) that Imran only bowled 10 times to me? You want to compare with Lillee go ahead and see his figures. Why do you want me to do your legwork? It is quite clear that anytime I mention something you move onto something else. Why should I waste my time then?
No its not your fault that Barry hasnt played Imran enuff. Its no body's fault. But u claimed initially that his 400+ FC games, were all quality. And thats what i questioned.
2) What county attack are you talking about? That is cricket-ignorance my friend. Here is my question to you - How did Indian players - Sunny, Kapil, Venkat, Farokh Engineer, etc perform against the very same county attack? Can you show me how their performance was even half of what BArry Richards acheived? Go on, show me some cold stats.
I showed u Gordon Greenidge's avg of 100 against the same attack, on the same pitches. And Greenidge is not rated even half as highly as Barry.
3) As for the scorcard that was a pointer to show you some stats as you wanted. That was NEVER the argument in itself. And I beleive with the scorecard it is established firmly that Barry did indeed hold his own against great bowlers. So if you choose to look the other way thats your logic, or lack thereof. xxxx
10 score cards indicate Barry held his own amongst great bowlers ? Anyways, we will be driving in circles here if we continue to talk about Barry any longer. My issue is that Barry hasnt played great bowlers for a sustained period of time. He hasnt stood out as a dominant batsman, in his stats against great bowlers, compared to his peers. (Greenidge too has the same stats). Even if i were to ignore Greenidge's stats, just 10 score cards vs Imran doesnt prove or disprove anything for me. If u want to debate this further, show me more score cards, or lets leave the debate unfinished. No, its not my job to prove Barry did not do well against other great bowlers. :hic: Enjoyed the debate, nevertheless, cheers :hic:
Link to comment

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers quote="Bumper"]I did consider Hutton, but Dravid's stats are better, has done it against more countries against better attacks. Saying Dravid & Punter doesnt belong alongside Tendu or Lara is bull dust. Both Punter & Dravid have done more than Tendu & Lara. Punter has a better average against all countries than Lara. Dravid's away averages are second to none. If Sunny Gavaskar an exciting batsman ? Is he not an all time great. Then why is Dravid's batting style important ?

Link to comment

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers I can't believe people question Rahul's and Ponting's credibility as a batsman purely based on the attack they have faced in the 2000s while praising Len Hutton and the rest not even having watched the bowlers from that generation. All you guys are depending on numbers and hear say while judging cricketers like Hutton, Headley, Pollock et al It smacks of double standard particularly when you quote numbers of older generation but refuse to believe the stats of say Rahul or Ponting :shrug: I guess some don't trust their eyes but only go by books :hic:

Link to comment

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

I can't believe people question Rahul's and Ponting's credibility as a batsman purely based on the attack he has faced in the 2000s while praising Len Hutton and the rest not even having watched the bowlers from that generation.
Don't need to have watched them to appreciate the fact that scoring against the likes of Lindwall, Miller, Valentine, Ramdhin, O'Reilly, Fazal Mahmood and co. on uncovered pitches is a much greater achievement than plundering against the riff-raff we see on today's flat decks
Link to comment

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

Lara and Tendulkar scored hundreds and won series against the best bowling attacks of their era, and purely in terms of batting ability and talent they can be ranked amongst the greatest batsmen of any generation. Dravid has NEVER scored runs against the greatest bowlers he has faced. He has never scored against McGrath and Warne together, he did nothing against Wasim, Waqar and Saqlain. The greatest test of Dravid's career was in the '99/00 season - two back to back series vs Australia and South Africa - the best bowling attacks of the decade; and Dravid couldn't buy a run against the likes of McGrath, Warne, Donald, Pollock, etc. His record in SA is crap; apart from just one stellar performance back in '96 when he got 148 and 81 in the 3rd test at Jo'burg. Dravid, like Ponting has only taken it to the next level once the great generation of fast bowlers went into retirement and flat pitches became the norm all across the world. The quality of the bowling attacks he scored against aren't good enough when compared to Lara or Tendulkar. How many genuinely great bowlers have we witnessed in the post millenium era ? You could count them on one hand. Purely subjective, but that is why i always look at them differently. Number crunching doesn't reveal everything. I'd personally rank Dravid and Ponting in the 2nd tier - along with guys like Mark Waugh, Kirsten, Stewart, Gooch etc. No shame in that. It's unbelieveable how you chose to leave out Border. He carried the Aussie batting lineup during their darkest years and is widely regarded by the Aussies as their 2nd best batsman after Bradman. That's why they commemorate their best performers with a medal bearing his name. He undoubtedly merits inclusion ahead of Dravid and Ponting.
Predator thats a very unfair accusation of Punter & Dravid. We already debated Punter the other day & i showed u his stats against the same attacks, Lara faced & he (Punter) was clearly better of the two. Its not Ponting's fault that he didnt face McWarne, just like its not Lara's fault that he did face Ambrose-Walsh. As for Dravid, did u not see his 180 in Kolkatta against McWarne ? Dravid played only one series against Akram & Co (hardly 3 tests). Prior to this Saffie series, Dravid has a ton & 5 50s against SA at an avg of 40. Against McWarne i agree he hasnt been impressive. If u want to talk about about pooping against great bowlers, Lara doesnt have much to show against Donald & co, Akram & co, either. Most of what Lara has scored against Pakistan & SA have come after his masters retired from test cricket. Lara vs Pak: 7 tests, avg: 30, no tons (Prior to Akram, Younis's retirement) Lara vs SA: 11 tests, avg: 35, no tons (Prior to Donald's retirement)
Link to comment

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

I can't believe people question Rahul's and Ponting's credibility as a batsman purely based on the attack he has faced in the 2000s while praising Len Hutton and the rest not even having watched the bowlers from that generation.
Don't need to have watched them to appreciate the fact that scoring against the likes of Lindwall, Miller, Valentine, Ramdhin, O'Reilly, Fazal Mahmood and co. on uncovered pitches is a much greater achievement than plundering against the riff-raff we see on today's flat decks
What is your basis of calling those bowlers as the best among the business? Numbers, hearsay, Wisden?
Link to comment

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

I can't believe people question Rahul's and Ponting's credibility as a batsman purely based on the attack they have faced in the 2000s while praising Len Hutton and the rest not even having watched the bowlers from that generation. All you guys are depending on numbers and hear say while judging cricketers like Hutton, Headley, Pollock et al It smacks of double standard particularly when you quote numbers of older generation but refuse to believe the stats of say Rahul or Ponting :shrug: I guess some don't trust their eyes but only go by books :hic:
Ver well said Ravi, u hit the nail on the head! U almost pulled these words out of my mouth, mate :hic:
Link to comment

Re: FAO Lurker: My 25 greatest cricketers

I can't believe people question Rahul's and Ponting's credibility as a batsman purely based on the attack they have faced in the 2000s while praising Len Hutton and the rest not even having watched the bowlers from that generation. All you guys are depending on numbers and hear say while judging cricketers like Hutton, Headley, Pollock et al It smacks of double standard particularly when you quote numbers of older generation but refuse to believe the stats of say Rahul or Ponting :shrug: I guess some don't trust their eyes but only go by books :hic:
Ver well said Ravi, u hit the nail on the head! U almost pulled these words out of my mouth, mate :hic:
mine too. :hmph:
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...